Category: Heidegger

III.INTRODUCTION

Martin Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit first appeared in German in 1927; the English translation, Being and Time, appeared in 1962.1 Since the appearance of this work, the reputation and influence of its author has spread to such international dimensions that it may be said that Heidegger is the most important and widely influential philosopher of the twentieth century. Even now, as the century enters its final decade, no thinker is more significant in terms of intellectual impact and controversy. There are many who deeply resent his works, who detest his personal association with Nazism in 1933, who defy his most fundamental principles. But even among these, his most ardent enemies, he is recognized as the singular dominating force with which to be reckoned. Among his countless admirers he is considered the greatest European philosopher since Immanuel Kant. Interest in this Freiburg philosopher is in no way waning; indeed the future seems to promise ever expanding respect, and in some cases even reverence, for his vast accomplishments. Although Heidegger has written voluminously since 1927, there remains little doubt that Being and Time will continue to be recognized as his major work, and shall be for many decades to come.

Heideggerian Eternal Return

NOTE: In the Xotinx we translate Heidegger’s “Sein” not as “Being” but “To-Be” or “ToBe”

#RUNE der (E-Hod) #Jera (Eternal Return) Anyone who wants to understand the Xotinx, must have an understanding of #Heidegger. Much of the POV of the Xotinx is formulated thru a kind of “Heideggerian Eternal Return”. Western Occultism may call this Eternal Return, RITUAL MAGIC.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” ― George #Orwell, 1984.

Understanding Heidegger’s Nietzche’s ETERNAL RETURN (der & dor #Jera) is like grasping Water. We can not understand Water until we become Water. We can not understand ‘Eternal Return’ until we become the Eternal Return. This can become possible thru the Xotinx in the Realization of No-Thing-ness (der & dor #Berkano). The usual Hod (state of consciousness) that we understand Eternal Return is in the Æ-Hod (dær #Æhwaz). This is the State of consciousness we would call the Intellectual, Scholarly, Logic etc. It is a calculative Hod that projects into ‘Reality’ Time & Space. This Æ-Hod tries to comprehend Eternal Return in Time & Space but it’s Understanding of Eternal Return is an Ossification of No-Thing-ness. Only when we move into an E-Hod (der or dor #Ehwaz) or the O-Hod (der or dor #Othala) can we begin to appreciate the Eternal Return. –Tiwaz

To understand the Runes, for example we have to understand the NOW (present). This is done thru a Heideggerian NOW, as unveiled (#Aletheia) explored in “Sein und Zeit” (Being and Time) thru a methodology Heidegger calls “Hermeneutics” . We will simply call this HEIDEGGERIAN ETERNAL RETURN. When we use Heideggerian Eternal Return to understand the Runes in this NOW we can understand the Runes of the past-future. This understanding of the past-future, thru the “Heideggerian Eternal Return”, gives us a deeper understand of the Runes in the NOW. This deeper understanding of the NOW, in turn, thru the “Heideggerian Eternal Return”, gives us a deeper understanding of the past-future, etc. until we finally consciously fall into a kind of #Nietzsche ian Abyss unveiling “Open-To-Be” (Enlightenment, Buddha-hood, Godhood, O-Hod).

“Open-To-Be” is not a linear THING with a past-present-future. It is in the NOW revealed thru the “Heideggerian Eternal Return”. Past-present-future are TIME & SPACE projections of Open-To-Be thru the Eternal Return, that ossifies thru projection into Time & Space as THINGS. Science deals with THINGS and can not understand “Open-To-Be” because there is NO-THING to understand. All THINGS, all thoughts, emotions, physicality must fall away before “Open-To-Be” can fully reveal itself as Enlightenment, Buddha-hood, Godhood, O-Hod, XOT-HOD.

To get a handle on Heidegger, it’s best to start with the source book, BEING IN TIME by Heidegger. If you can read Deutsch it’s even better to read the original SEIN UND ZEIT by Heidegger. A very helpful book that will give you a handle of what “Sein und Zeit” is saying is – Commentary on Heidegger’s Being And Time : Michael Gelven.

NOTES:

BEING & TIME

III.INTRODUCTION

Martin Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit first appeared in German in 1927; the English translation, Being and Time, appeared in 1962.1 Since the appearance of this work, the reputation and influence of its author has spread to such international dimensions that it may be said that Heidegger is the most important and widely influential philosopher of the twentieth century. Even now, as the century enters its final decade, no thinker is more significant in terms of intellectual impact and controversy. There are many who deeply resent his works, who detest his personal association with Nazism in 1933, who defy his most fundamental principles. But even among these, his most ardent enemies, he is recognized as the singular dominating force with which to be reckoned. Among his countless admirers he is considered the greatest European philosopher since Immanuel Kant. Interest in this Freiburg philosopher is in no way waning; indeed the future seems to promise ever expanding respect, and in some cases even reverence, for his vast accomplishments. Although Heidegger has written voluminously since 1927, there remains little doubt that Being and Time will continue to be recognized as his major work, and shall be for many decades to come.

Open-To-Be

Aletheia

Heidegger’s idea of aletheia, or disclosure (Erschlossenheit), was an attempt to make sense of how things in the world appear to human beings as part of an opening in intelligibility, as “unclosedness” or “unconcealedness”. It is closely related to the notion of world disclosure, the way in which things get their sense as part of a holistically structured, pre-interpreted background of meaning. Initially, Heidegger wanted aletheia to stand for a re-interpreted definition of truth. However, he later corrected the association of aletheia with truth. See main article on aletheia for more information.

ETERNAL RETURN

In Bk 3 part Two of ‘Nietzsche’ Heidegger says:

“Reckoned chronologically, Nietzsche pursued the thought of the eternal return of the same before he conceived of the will to power, even though intimations of the latter may be found every bit as early…Nietzsche himself was never able to explicitly think through its [eternal return of the same] with will to power as such, nor elevate it into a metaphysical conception. The reason for this is not that the thought remained in any way obscure to him, but that like all meta physicians prior to him, Nietzsche was unable to find his way back to the fundamental traits of the guiding metaphysical projection. For the general traits of the metaphysical projection of beings upon being ness, and thereby the representation of beings as such in the domain of presence and permanence, can be known only when we come to experience that projection as historically cast.” (p. 164)

‘Recurrence’ understood as a principle in a metaphysics of becoming is the permanentizing of what becomes: it is the point where becoming of what becomes (eg., an entity) is secured in the duration of its becoming.

The ‘eternal’ is the point where the permanentizing of such constancy in the direction of its circling back into itself and forward toward itself. What becomes is the same itself.

HEIDEGGERIAN

Heidegger’s fame and reputation have developed to such an extent that he is now recognized as the single most important thinker in the twentieth century. The labels of twenty years ago have, thankfully, fallen away, and Heidegger is seen as a figure of such stature that there is no adequate label to designate him except his own name. The far-reaching impact of his thought promises to extend well into the future.

Heidegger asserts that a phenomena can be grasped in and for themselves in immediate perception. The function of language (logos) is to reveal what phenomena show. However language has a different Being from the phenomena it describes, so the danger is that language will only a ‘appear’ to tell us what the phenomena is. In other words, the inherent danger of describing phenomena in language is that the Being of language (because it is different from the Being of phenomena) can effectively a cover up the being of phenomena.

Therefore, in order to sort out the covering up of language from the truth of language, we need a method of interrogating language which is both systematic and reflexive enough to hopefully alert us to any potential covering ups. This method is what Heidegger calls, “hermeneutics,” or the business of interpretation. As Heidegger asserts – our investigation will show that the meaning of phenomenological description, as a method, lies in interpretation. It is therefore through hermeneutics, as a systematising approach to interpreting, that the authentic meaning of Being can be articulated. Language, in the form of words (logos), when it represents the phenomenology of Dasein, always has the character of hermeneutics. [ref. ¶7, page 61 – 62] There are three points about this to bear in mind.

The phenomenology of Dasein is a hermeneutic in the a primordial signification of the word. That is, in the sense that hermeneutics can be defined simply and most primordially as the business of interpreting (although see point 3 for more clarification).

Because of the priority of Dasein over other entities for working out the question of Being, it follows that, through the hermeneutics of Dasein, the horizon for any further a ontological study will be revealed.

The ontical condition for the possibility of historiology contains the roots of what can be called ‘hermeneutic’ only in its vaguest sense. When we think about this in the context of the derivative sense of the methodology of those human sciences which are historiological in character, it becomes clear that unless we can articulate a hermeneutic of Dasein’s historicity in an ontological way, it is not a true hermaneutic. This reiterates the point that Hermeneutics when applied to Dasein does not mean interpretation, in the sense that the two terms are precisely synonymous, but rather that Hermeneutics should be consideres as a “science of interpretation” in that it systematises the interpretation using a conscious method. [ref. ¶7, page 61 – 62]

NOTHING

This inquiry into Nothing presupposes a thinking capable of grasping “Being in its own truth and truth as “aletheia” and of reestablishing the relation between man and Being. This is what Heidegger calls substantial thinking (das wesentliche Denken). (14) Thus, inquiry into Nothing leads thinking beyond metaphysics and by attempting to reestablish the relation between man and Being is expected to change “the essence of man”. (15) http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContIyi.htm

THINGS

The term entities is used strategically throughout Being and Time, so that Heidegger can avoid talking about “things”. This is because the term “things” already presupposes an understanding of their existence, which Heidegger thinks is false and seeks to contest. As he points out, we are on dangerous ground even by addressing entities as ‘Things’, for in doing so we have “tacitly anticipated their ontological character”. This was, in a nutshell, the mistake of Descartes and his forebears. Heidegger argues if you talk about the world in terms of things, the only “thing” you are ever going to uncover is the totally erroneous conception of the “Thinghood and Reality.” [ref. ¶ 15, page 95]

ToBe

Since the whole of Being and Time is an attempt to answer the question, “What is Being?”, it would be a little presumptions of me to attempt a summary here. However, there are three preliminary remarks that can be extracted from the ontological tradition in philosophy, that will help us initially to clarify the question:

1/ “Being is not a genus”.
It has been maintained that Being is the most universal of concepts, thus an understanding of Being is presupposed in our conceiving of anything as an entity. Being transcends any categorical distinction we care to make in our apprehension of the world. It does this by existing above and beyond any notion of a category that we can form in our understanding.

2/ Being is indefinable.
The term entity cannot be applied to Being because it cannot be defined using traditional logic, (i.e. a technique for understanding which derives its terms either from higher general concepts, or by recourse to ones of lower generality). In other words, because Being is neither a thing nor a genus it follows that it cannot be defined according to logic, whose job is to set out the rules that govern the categorisation of phenomena and concepts.

3/ Being is self-evident
Whenever one thinks about anything, or makes an assertion, or even asks a question; some use is made of Being. But the intelligibility of Being, in this sense, is only an average sort of intelligibility (common sense understanding). This average intelligibility is also indicative of its scholarly unintelligibility, i.e., the way that the question: “what is Being?”, is often ignored in philosophical investigations. [ref. ¶ 1, page 22 – 23]

Subsequently Heidegger elaborated a more considered conceptualising of Being into five characteristics:

1/ Dasein is a Being who understands that it exists, and what is more the Being of Dasein is, in part, shaped by that understanding.

2/ The above statement can be seen to serves as a working definition of the formal conception of existence,

3/ Dasein exists and moreover Dasein and existence are one. For example if Dasein is ‘the human Being’ and existence is ‘the world,’ then Dasein and the world are one. The consequence of this is that Dasein and existence cannot be separated – even analytically separated.

4/ Dasein is also an entity which I myself am. In other words each one of us (as human Beings) defines existence in terms of our own existence, a concept that Heidegger terms Mineness. Therefore the only way that Being can be understood is as My Being.’ This applies even when Being and Dasein are considered in general.

5/ Mineness belongs to any existent Dasein, in the sense that how I regard ‘my Being’, creates the conditions that make authenticity and inauthenticity possible. [ref. ¶ 12, page 78]

[[I never really liked Nietzsche because I became acquainted with him from Fans of Nietzsche who kept Quoting Phrases to me that seemed at best Suspect n at worst Corny. It is only when I started reading Heidegger’s Nietzsche that I began to appreciate Nietzsche’s true Greatness]]

z 4 “Confrontation” is genuine criticism. It is the supreme way, the only way, to a true estimation of a thinker. In confrontation we undertake to reflect on his thinking and to trace it in its effective force, not in its weakness. To what purpose? In order that through the confrontation we ourselves may become free for the supreme exertion of thinking. [[rr10æhh]]

z 5 … At the outset, we ought to introduce some words of Nietzsche’s that stem from the time of his work on “will to power“! “For many, abstract thinking is toil; for me, on good days, it is feast and frenzy” (XIV, 24). [[rr01æhh. Philosophy like Mystical Texts have for me less to do with “Words” & more to do with d State of Consciousness that they put me in. For Example in Music is it d Words or Music that enraptures us or is it d State of Consciousness that they evoke in us?]]
Abstract thinking a feast? The highest form of human existence? Indeed. But at the same time we must observe how Nietzsche views the essence of the feast, in such a way that he can think of it only on the basis of his fundamental conception of all being, will to power. “The feast implies: pride, exuberance, frivolity; mockery of all earnestness and respectability; a divine affirmation of oneself, out of animal plenitude and perfection–all obvious states to which the Christian may not honestly say Yes. The feast is paganism par excellence” (WM, 916). For that reason, we might add, the feast of thinking never takes place in Christianity. That is to say, there is no Christian philosophy. There is no true philosophy that could be determined anywhere else than from within itself. For the same reason there is no pagan philosophy, inasmuch as anything “pagan” is always still something Christian —the counter-Christian, The Greek poets and thinkers can hardly be designated as “pagan.”

I miss spending time with you. Your POV of reality is always refreshing and in some ways grounding. Don’t worry that you rant. This is normal for someone who is seeing more than the average person who is not immersed in the “they”* world.

The problem is possession, the state when we are being hypnotized by someone or something. This some THING, THIS SEIEND* can be so called “real”, unreal, paranoiac, fantasy ‘the truth’ etc. but they are all just Matrixes that limit us if we can not step out of them. Chess is a Matrix of Possibilities. I spent periods of my life where nothing else existed. It helped me deal with the “they” world by giving me a refuge to heal. Eventually I had to step out of the Chess Matrix and deal with the “they” Matrix. To say that the Chess Matrix is less real than the ‘they’ Matrix is missing the point. I can play chess whenever I want and I can play the ‘they’ Matrix when NEEDED. It is the skill through spiritual discipline to play in whatever sandbox that allows you to unfold to your true spiritual destiny. Carl Jung found himself buying and being obsessed with Alchemy Books. He asked: ‘Where these just medieval rants that purported to find mystical recipes that could change lead into gold or change gross matter into the elixir of life?’ The Alchemy Matrix had possessed Jung. When he was given the key to Alchemy by Richard Wilhelm in the book ‘THE SECRET OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER’ the obsession only increased but the possession decreased. He was becoming more aware, more conscious and this put him on a higher level of consciousness that allowed him to exorcise the possession with his new found genius. To say possession is always wrong of course depends if it is part of your spiritual unfolding or enslavement. Jung kept himself sane through his spiritual discipline of Depth Psychology and in troth with the process of awakening. Jung called this the individuation process and some like Abraham Maslow have called it Self-Actualizing. The alchemist could of called it working on their Magnum Opus. The Hindu’s call it Yoga, the Chinese call it the Tao, New Agers call it Enlightenment. People who hold Troth with AbenLand call it God, Gott, Goth, Gote, Xot, etc. (X=G in Xot Language) In this Xoting, this quickening, we come to know we are more than any one matrix or combination of matrixes we are the ground of these matrixes that surpassed all restrictions of time and space. Unfortunately Judeo-Christianity has high jacked these sacred words and bastardized them to such extend we are hostile and alien to them.

Each matrix is a sand box and we are children destined for endless play. When young wolves play are they just playing or are they embracing their true nature. Friend do not be afraid to play! – just develop the discipline so that you can remember which sandbox you are in. Keeping a daily Xoting Journal is imperative for you surviving the storms of the Xoting and the “they” world. The Genie or Genius has been activated and there is no way to put it back into the bottle of the ‘they’ Matrix. Yes the truth Friend is that if you can develop the disciplines that are needed you are destined for a dance of endless play and bliss that leads to the Immortality of XotHood.

Your spiritual Friend Tiwaz

FOOTNOTES:SEIEND:In German, Heidegger is distinguishing Sein (the verb-derived abstract noun corresponding to ‘being’ in English) from Seiend, the German gerund of the verb sein (‘to be’). In English, however, the gerund of ‘to be’ is also ‘being’. To preserve Heidegger’s distinction, translators usually render ‘Seiend’ as ‘a being’ or ‘beings,’ and occasionally as ‘entity’. REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Time#Endnotes

“THEY”:This “who” of “everyday” Dasein is the “they” [das Man], which is characterized by distantiality, averageness and levelling down and constitutes “publicness.” The “they” is both everybody and nobody “to whom every Dasein has already surrendered itself in Being-among-one-another.” The “they-self” is the “not itself” of Dasein to be distinguished from authentic Dasein. Authentic Being-one’s-Self, therefore, is an existentiell modification of the “they” as an essential existentiale, and, therefore, the former is the more primordial disclosure of Dasein. REF: http://www.mythosandlogos.com/heidegger.html

Skadi Forum
Germanic & Pre-Germanic Origins Dedicated to general historical, social, linguistic, political and cultural topics pertinent to the development and origin of Germanics and to early (Indo-)Germanic tribes and groups, for the purpose of understanding ou
7